↓ Skip to main content

The brain adapts to dishonesty

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Neuroscience, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 4,413)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
246 news outlets
blogs
36 blogs
twitter
1121 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
42 Facebook pages
googleplus
24 Google+ users
reddit
4 Redditors
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
426 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
The brain adapts to dishonesty
Published in
Nature Neuroscience, October 2016
DOI 10.1038/nn.4426
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil Garrett, Stephanie C Lazzaro, Dan Ariely, Tali Sharot

Abstract

Dishonesty is an integral part of our social world, influencing domains ranging from finance and politics to personal relationships. Anecdotally, digressions from a moral code are often described as a series of small breaches that grow over time. Here we provide empirical evidence for a gradual escalation of self-serving dishonesty and reveal a neural mechanism supporting it. Behaviorally, we show that the extent to which participants engage in self-serving dishonesty increases with repetition. Using functional MRI, we show that signal reduction in the amygdala is sensitive to the history of dishonest behavior, consistent with adaptation. Critically, the extent of reduced amygdala sensitivity to dishonesty on a present decision relative to the previous one predicts the magnitude of escalation of self-serving dishonesty on the next decision. The findings uncover a biological mechanism that supports a 'slippery slope': what begins as small acts of dishonesty can escalate into larger transgressions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,121 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 426 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 1%
France 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 404 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 105 25%
Researcher 67 16%
Student > Bachelor 64 15%
Student > Master 52 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 6%
Other 81 19%
Unknown 31 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 130 31%
Neuroscience 61 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 22 5%
Other 93 22%
Unknown 55 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3005. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 January 2020.
All research outputs
#304
of 14,161,931 outputs
Outputs from Nature Neuroscience
#2
of 4,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11
of 290,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Neuroscience
#1
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,161,931 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.